WA NO. 287 OF 2018 1 2025:KER:25867 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S. WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WA NO. 287 OF 2018 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.12.2017 IN WPC NO.38685 OF 2017 APPELLANT/PETITIONER: M/S.MANAPPURAM JEWELLERS 4/522, 1ST FLOOR, MANAPPURAM HOUSE, VALAPPAD P.O.,THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,SUSHAMA NANDAKUMAR. BY ADV SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ASST.COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT) COMMERCIAL TAXES SPECIAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR - 680 001. 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA NO. 287 OF 2018 2 2025:KER:25867 JUDGMENT Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. This Writ Appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 18.12.2017 of a learned Single Judge in WP(C).No.38685 of 2017. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this Writ Appeal are as follows: The appellant had impugned Ext.P4 assessment order in the Writ Petition that led to the impugned judgment. On a perusal of the Writ Petition, we find that many issues were adjudicated upon in the assessment order, one of which was the entitlement of the appellant to input tax credit in circumstances where he was in receipt of a valid invoice showing payment of tax by the supplier, but there was no proof regarding actual payment of tax by the supplier to the Government. We are told that the said issue is pending consideration before a Full Bench of this Court pursuant to contrary decisions on the same issue having been noticed by a Division Bench of this court. 3. Be that as it may, we find that the issue relating to entitlement for input tax credit was not the only issue that was adjudicated in the assessment order, and the other issues that were adjudicated against the appellant are factual in nature, the legality of which cannot be gone into in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is perhaps noticing the above facts that the learned Single Judge found it appropriate to dismiss the Writ petition and relegate the appellant herein to the alternate remedy under Section 55 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. 4. We have heard Smt.Krishna, the learned counsel for the Appellant WA NO. 287 OF 2018 3 2025:KER:25867 and Sri.V.K.Shamsudheen, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents. 5. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is legally unassailable. As is trite, a factual adjudication of matters is better undertaken by the statutory authorities. The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked for an adjudication that is essentially based on unestablished factual aspects of a case. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge that relegated the appellant to his alternate remedy of filing an appeal against the assessment order. The Writ Appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. 6. Before parting with this case, and taking note of the period spent before this Court in pursuing the Writ Appeal, we make it clear that if the appellant prefers the statutory appeal against Ext.P4 order within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, then the Appellate Authority shall consider the appeal as one filed within time and proceed to adjudicate the same on merits within an outer time limit of three months from the date of receipt of the appeal from the appellant. The Writ Appeal is disposed as above. Sd/- DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/- EASWARAN S. JUDGE mns